References
- Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
- Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2003). The discipline and practice of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Frayer, D., Frederick, W. C., & Klausmeier, H. J. (1969). A schema for testing the level of cognitive mastery. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
- ISTE. (2014a). ISTE standards. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards
- ISTE. (2014b). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards/standards-for-students
- ISTE. (2015a). Essential conditions. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/essential-conditions
- ISTE. (2015b). Student-centered learning. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/essential-conditions
- McLeod, J. (2011). Digitally curious: A qualitative case study of children's demonstrations of curiosity in a technology rich learning environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of North Texas, Denton, TX.
- McLeod, J., & Vasinda, S. (2008). Electronic portfolios: Perspectives of students, teachers and parents. Education and Information Technology, 14, 29–38.
- Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 1–10.
- Morphew, V. N. (2012). A constructivist approach to the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE].
- Porcaro, D. (2011). Applying constructivism in instructivist learning cultures. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 5(1), 39–54. doi:10.1108/17504971111121919
- Qing, L., & Xin, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students' mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 215–243. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9125-8
- Rosen, Y., & Salomon, G. (2007). The differential learning achievements of constructivist technology-intensive learning environments as compared with traditional ones: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36, 1–14. doi:10.2190/R8M4-7762-282U-554J
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What 40 years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28.
- Vasinda, S., & McLeod, J. (2011). Extending Readers Theater: A powerful and purposeful match with podcasting. Reading Teacher, 64(7), 486–497.
- Wengraf, T. (2006). Qualitative research interviewing. London, UK: Sage.
- WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies. (2010). No significant difference. Retrieved from http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/
- Winn, W. (2002). Current trends in educational technology research: The study of learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 331–51.
- Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.